Comments

Economics is so much touted in our time as if it is the whole truth and the only truth, but it is simply the superstructure, or the shadow, of the underlying civilization and culture of our time. We will be evading the problem unless we go down to the bottom.

Dr. Singer's essay is interesting indeed, but our knowledge of what our old, traditional society was like and what it was about, and our knowledge of what we call primitive societies will shed more light than neuroscience on where and why we are wrong.

Corrections: People of the West had thought after the fall of the Roman Empire until about the end of the eighteenth century that...sprinkling all sorts of dangers.

What frightens me is that our children's children, if not our children, might think that they would never again be able to have the living standard of their grandparents.

People of the West had thought that they would never again attain the living standard that Romans enjoyed until around the end of the eighteenth century; no previous society encouraged selfishness as the way leading to social well-being.

Political and economic philosophers since the end of the eighteenth century thought proudly that they had al last found a great truth about selfishness that pursuing one's own interests selfishly and single-mindedly would lead to everyone's best interests and welfare. This belief has spread all over the world, sprinlling all sorts of dangers.

Once we were masters of capitalism, but captalism has become such a gigantic entity that it has been swallowing us up. Read more

I think this is a very important article because it points to the most crucial and uniquely human aspect of our being: free choice.In order to free choice to exist there has to be two possibilities.

As the article suggest human beings have a "double sided" nature.Our basic matter is a desire to receive satisfaction, fulfillment for ourselves.As our ego developed this nature self-calculating nature of ours have developed to its maximum, dominating "our being", creating the present human society where exclusive an exploitative competition reigns. Today we want to succeed, profit, enjoy at the expense of others.

Even the initial, "fair" paradigm of "what is mine is mine, what is yours is yours" have been distorted to "what is mine is mine, what is yours is mine".

But as the author describes we have another side, our compassionate, even altruistic side.So far as self-preservation, the "survival of the fittest" was in primary focus in our development, this compassionate side of ours have been naturally suppressed.

But now evolution put us into completely new conditions. In the new, global and integral human system where everybody is interconnected and interdependent the "homo economicus", or "cancer-like" human cannot survive.

As it happened with single cell organisms gradually merging into multi-cellular organisms for survival, now humanity also have to create a single, global "human being" in order to build a sustainable future. Sine human beings are not above, outside of the evolving natural system but are part of it, this evolutionary switch, change from individualistic, self-serving humanity to a globally, mutually cooperating, complementing one will happen without our choice. But if we leave this change to natural development, it will take many crisis situations, probably wars and incomprehensible suffering to convince us to change.

But uniquely to human beings capable of critical self-assessment and self-change, we have a free choice. We can increase the dominance of our compassionate side over the dominance of our self-serving nature, thus paving the way of a new human society that is mutually responsible, mutually cooperating instead of the exclusive competition.

Any sustainable change requires positive motivation, all similar social experiments based on trickery, or terror have failed. And positive motivation and fundamental, sustainable change can only be achieved with a special education program and by changing the values of society.This is what we have to start working on without any hesitation. Read more

Completely agree. Since "What's mine is mine," happens before the "what's yours is yours," part--precaution is on the side of guaranteeing your--which is only possible by border crossing and theft to provide the "buffer." Conflict is inevitable, and in an ever interconnected reality, catastrophic. Our right and left hand best pet each other and hugs us rather than crush each others fingers and punch us, if we wish to have a pleasant life in the future. Read more

Completely agree. Since "What's mine is mine," happens before the "what's yours is yours," part--precaution is on the side of guaranteeing your--which is only possible by border crossing and theft to provide the "buffer." Conflict is inevitable, and in an ever interconnected reality, catastrophic. Our right and left hand best pet each other and hugs us rather than crush each others fingers and punch us, if we wish to have a pleasant life in the future. Read more

Completely agree. Since "What's mine is mine," happens before the "what's yours is yours," part--precaution is on the side of guaranteeing your--which is only possible by border crossing and theft to provide the "buffer." Conflict is inevitable, and in an ever interconnected reality, catastrophic. Our right and left hand best pet each other and hugs us rather than crush each others fingers and punch us, if we wish to have a pleasant life in the future. Read more

Completely agree. Since "What's mine is mine," happens before the "what's yours is yours," part--precaution is on the side of guaranteeing your--which is only possible by border crossing and theft to provide the "buffer." Conflict is inevitable, and in an ever interconnected reality, catastrophic. Our right and left hand best pet each other and hugs us rather than crush each others fingers and punch us, if we wish to have a pleasant life in the future. Read more

Completely agree. Since "What's mine is mine," happens before the "what's yours is yours," part--precaution is on the side of guaranteeing your--which is only possible by border crossing and theft to provide the "buffer." Conflict is inevitable, and in an ever interconnected reality, catastrophic. Our right and left hand best pet each other and hugs us rather than crush each others fingers and punch us, if we wish to have a pleasant life in the future. Read more

Completely agree. Since "What's mine is mine," happens before the "what's yours is yours," part--precaution is on the side of guaranteeing your--which is only possible by border crossing and theft to provide the "buffer." Conflict is inevitable, and in an ever interconnected reality, catastrophic. Our right and left hand best pet each other and hugs us rather than crush each others fingers and punch us, if we wish to have a pleasant life in the future. Read more

Completely agree. Since "What's mine is mine," happens before the "what's yours is yours," part--precaution is on the side of guaranteeing your--which is only possible by border crossing and theft to provide the "buffer." Conflict is inevitable, and in an ever interconnected reality, catastrophic. Our right and left hand best pet each other and hugs us rather than crush each others fingers and punch us, if we wish to have a pleasant life in the future. Read more

I am not sure about the interpretation of "homo economicus". This article (http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/economist-critics-by-hans-werner-sinn-2015-01) gives another view as the intended use of such models.

Nevertheless, the article is very-very encouraging, among a flood of thought on how to improve the earnings of the rationally acting egoist. Building such models, as Tania Singer suggests, will be very helpful, if embraced by the state and put to use to influence incentives. For example, if there is support for such policies, the state could crowed-out or, simply, tax some of the activity aimed at extreme private earnings that are harmful for the economy, but also for equality and the environment, or campaign and educate against private financing of such activity. I am not an economist and I, probably, cannot think of the proper uses of what Tania Singer advocates, but I would expect better shaping of the market, with the support of consumers and investors, if states embrace such models.

Well, culture is everything. What Diego says is true: "It is perfectly possible for a utility function in economics to include others' utility." But that's not how things work in the real world of capitalism. Firms, investors, and individual consumers rarely focus on others' utility. Why not? Because, in our culture, we associate empathy or compassion with church, philanthropy or family, not with economics. And because economics plays an outsized role in our lives, compassion is diminished. I would say the author has an opposite problem, assuming that some sort of behavioral program can alter outcomes in the context of a capitalist culture. Change each indiividual and you change the system. Of course that is logically true. But any behavioral modification program in schools will run up against the laws, structures, institutional culture, and reward systems of capitalism and founder on its rocky shores. Sure we might wind up with a few more and better social workers, but we will have the same number of sociopathic ceo's, bankers, and consumers who kill each other on Black Friday.

You have to change the system to change the indiviudlas within it. That could take a million different forms, obviously. But sort of some wholesale change that takes profiteering out of most social interaction we will never have compassion on a large scale. And that goes not just for compassion towards humans but towards non humans and "ecosystems" as well.Read more

The state can “correct” firms’ incentives by regulation, or, simply tax behavior for which there is political consent that it is unwanted. Similarly, global agreements can be pursued if directions that are not harmful for the economy, despite the fact they may not maximize economic efficiency, because of higher global targets, such as the environment and inequality. Read more

I do, of course, agree on the importance of compassion for the economy. The article, however, is based on a basic mis-understanding of economic models. It is perfectly possible for a utility function in economics to include others' utility - i.e. to include compassion into economic models. The selfish "homo economicus" straw-man is a simplistic way of judging economics. Read more

PS On Air: The Super Germ Threat

NOV 2, 2016

In the latest edition of PS On
Air
, Jim O’Neill discusses how to beat antimicrobial resistance, which
threatens millions of lives, with Gavekal Dragonomics’ Anatole Kaletsky
and Leonardo Maisano of
Il Sole 24 Ore.

Subscribe to our Newsletter

Subscribe to our Newsletter

Sign up to receive newsletters about what's being discussed on Project Syndicate.

EmailReceive our Sunday newsletterA weekly collection of our most discussed columnsReceive our PS On Point newsletterStay informed of the world's leading opinions on global issues

Why not register an account with us, too? You'll be able to follow individual authors (to receive notifications whenever they publish new articles) and subscribe to more specific, topic-based newsletters.

Project Syndicate provides readers with original, engaging, and thought-provoking commentaries by global leaders and thinkers. By offering incisive perspectives from those who are shaping the world’s economics, politics, science, and culture, Project Syndicate has created an unrivaled global venue for informed public debate.